Presentism and Representation: Saying it Without Words

Synthese (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The Triviality Argument against presentism maintains that we should reject presentism because there is no way to define the view that is not either trivially true or obviously false. We suggest that this style of argument over-emphasises purely linguistic means of representing a philosophical thesis. We argue that there is no reason to suppose that all philosophical theses must be linguistically representable, and thus that the failure to linguistically represent presentism is no big deal. It certainly shouldn’t lead us to reject the view. We offer a more general moral for philosophy, and that is to look beyond purely linguistic methods of representing philosophical views and embrace a wider range of representational media.

Author Profiles

Sam Baron
Australian Catholic University
Kristie Miller
University of Sydney
Jonathan Tallant
Nottingham University


Added to PP

41 (#69,252)

6 months
41 (#24,968)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?